Usha Gotiram Tupvihire v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

2025:BHC-AUG:15810

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 735 OF 2025 Usha Gotiram Tupvihire

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

------------------------- Mr. Vijay V. Deshmukh for the Applicant.

Mr. A. M. Phule, APP for the State.

------------------------- CORAM :

ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.

DATE :

23 JUNE 2025 P. C.:

1.

The Applicant has filed the present proceedings for the grant of anticipatory bail as she apprehends arrest. The proceedings relate to CR No.0368 of 2024 lodged by the Kranti Chowk Police Station, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. The Sections invoked are 319(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ("BNS"). The alleged incident as stated in the FIR was occurred on 14 December 2024. The FIR was lodged on the same date at 18:46 hours.

Case in the FIR:- 2.

The informant, as stated in the FIR, is one Dnyaneshwar Gangadhar Harkal, age 36 years. According to the FIR, the informant was appointed as Center Director for conducting typing examination at Shivaji High School, Khokadpura, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar on 14 December

2024 and 15 December 2024. Through verification, he found that accused Nos.1, 3 and 5 were trying to appear as dummy candidates by uploading and affixing their photographs on the hall-tickets in names of accused Nos.2, 4 and 6. On the hall-ticket of one candidate namely Amit Supekar, photo of accused No.3 was affixed and stamped by the Typing Institute of present Applicant and accordingly verified. The arrested accused disclosed name of the present Applicant that on the say of present typing institute, he appeared for typing. Examination. In such circumstances, the FIR has been lodged. Submissions:- 3.

Learned Advocate for the Applicant has drawn the Court's attention to orders dated 7 April 2025 and 21 April 2025 with regard to the accused No.8, who was first granted ad-interim protection and subsequently granted the anticipatory bail by such orders, respectively. He would submit that the facts and circumstances are identical. He would submit that the Applicant would co-operate with the investigation. For such reasons, custodial interrogation of this Applicant is not necessary and the application be allowed.

4.

Learned APP would vehemently oppose the application. He would submit that this is a case of a scam, wherein not only just false halltickets are prepared but also false photographs are affixed on which also bears same stamps. Such stamps have been prepared/manufactured by the Applicant. The Applicant has also received some consideration from the

candidates to the extent of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.18,000/- as supported by the case papers/diary. In such facts and circumstances, for a thorough investigation, custodial interrogation of the Applicant is required. He would thus submit that the Anticipatory Bail Application ought to be rejected. Findings:- 5.

With the assistance of the learned counsel for the Applicant and learned APP, I have perused the FIR. A perusal of the FIR would reveal that there is no specific role attributed to the Applicant insofar as the alleged offences are invoked against her as stated in the said FIR. The order dated 21 April 2025 of this Court passed in Anticipatory Bail Application No.503 of 2025 granting anticipatory bail to the applicant therein would apply to this Applicant as well, passed in the same CR. There is no difference in on facts pointed out by the learned APP in this regard. It is pertinent to note that the FIR states that the accused No.5 has disclosed the name of the Applicant as the person who has affixed the photographs of the three persons, who were trying to appear as dummy candidates. However, in the same breath the FIR in the later paragraphs contradicts such statement. The arrested accused No.5 has made statement during the course of investigation which has been duly recorded by the Investigation Officer goes to show that investigation has substantially progressed.

6.

In my view, it prima facie appears that the Sections of the BNS invoked in the FIR would not be applicable to this Applicant, in the given

factual complexion, as far as the Applicant is concerned. In any case, the offence under Section 319(2) of the BNS as invoked is bailable. There are no criminal antecedents against the Applicant. Mr. Phule fairly submitted that the Applicant has attended the concerned police station. Her co-operation in the investigation coupled with the fact that she seems to have joined the investigation cannot be ruled out. In such factual complexion prima facie a case for grant of anticipatory bail has been made out by the Applicant. Though investigation is right of the prosecution in every case, it it not the norm. In the present facts and circumstances custodial interrogation in my view is not warranted.

7.

For the reasons noted above, the following order would thus meet the ends of justice:-

ORDER

(i) In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with CR No.0368 of 2024 registered with the Kranti Chowk Police Station, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 319(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on her furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.20,000 (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount. (ii) The Applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and shall attend the concerned police station on every Monday at 11.30

a.m.

(iii) The Applicant shall furnish details of residential address and other contact details such as mobile number etc. to the concerned police station. If there is any change in the contact details, the same shall be immediately informed to the concerned police station.

(iv) The Applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission/order of the Court, until further orders.

(v) The Applicant shall not influence the witness/es and/or tamper evidence in any manner whatsoever.

8.

Needless it is to observe that the above observations are prima facie, in the context of adjudication of this Anticipatory Bail Application. 9.

The Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed in the above terms. [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.]